No, because it’s a 3 way information exchange.
When you visit a site, you, the site and the government know that you went there.
In cases where the company can exploit that information because it can 100% verify you are a real person that’s bad.
But when the people in government can identify that their political opposition did “bad things” online and exploit that against them, that’s also bad. Also, the people in charge can always fake that if they want to, and if the system exists, because there is little oversight over the currently planned systems.
We’re not talking about “normal and legal behavior”, it needs to be tamper proof and safe against malicious actors inside the system. That’s nearly impossible to do, so the safe option is to not create that system.
It can be simpler than that. If operating systems offered an option to create a user account flagged as a child account, it could also come with software to limit the use of child accounts on the local machine, and let the parent configure what is/not blocked.
I know third-party solutions exist for this use case. My point is that the functionality could be implemented better and use of it could be more mainstream.
My ideal solution would be a parent controlled OS based “child account” that has a white list for allowed apps and websites and parents who then use that feature.
I would like to avoid any solution where the website learns anything about the users. Including what facebook has proposed and done in the US, making the age API request thing a law. They’re doing that to make their ad targeting more precise, not to protect anyone.
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
A government that’s that untrustworthy, doesn’t deserve to exist.
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Sure, but they still do exist.
GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Yes. Like sexual predators they’re more common than people like to admit and I’ve had the displeasure of knowing a few. Also like sexual predators, living like they’re ubiquitous instead of taking out the trash is not the best way to deal with them.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 1 week ago
It’s not about who is/not worthy of that level of trust. It’s about the risks associated with putting that much private information in any one place.
Even if you trust the person you’re giving your info to completely, mistakes happen every day, that many identities in one place is an attractive target for hackers, and there are very few regulations that would require a private company to disclose such a breach, even fewer that would require them to compensate you for any damages resulting from such.